Mrs. Lukes and Councilor-at-Large Kathleen M. Toomey opposed placing the resolution on file. Councilor-at-Large Michael J. Germain was not present for the vote.

As part of her resolution, Mrs. Lukes also asked the council to oppose the implementation of any state legislation or regulations authorizing the dispensing or production of medical marijuana until the matter is resolved by federal legislation.

She pointed out that while Massachusetts voters approved a referendum in the Nov. 6 election to legalize marijuana for medicinal purposes, the federal government still views marijuana as an illegal substance.

The councilor suggested that the resolution be referred to the council’s Public Health and Human Services Committee for further discussion in light of additional information she has received about medical marijuana dispensaries in other states.

But Mr. O’Brien argued that consideration of the resolution at this time — even to have it referred to a subcommittee — was not appropriate because the state is in the process of promulgating rules governing the siting of medical marijuana dispensaries.

He also pointed out that 63 percent of the voters statewide, and 62 percent of the voters in Worcester, voted in favor of the medical marijuana referendum question in last month’s election.

“Considering this (resolution) would send a message that we don’t agree with the voters,” Mr. O’Brien said. “I move that we file this; it’s the right thing to do.”

Mr. Eddy said governmental bodies should not attempt to override the will of the people, except in extreme occasions such as when voters approve tax-cutting measures that would have major negative impacts on the operation of government.

“This is a time when government needs to say we respect the will of the voters,” he said. “We need to let the will of the voters stand in this instance. It would not be prudent for this council to come in and say we need to look at other options.”

Mrs. Lukes, who believes that Worcester will end up with a marijuana dispensary, is most concerned about the impact it could have on its neighborhood.

Under the law approved by voters, as many as 35 centers can open next year, with a maximum of five centers per county.

Mrs. Lukes urged caution on the matter. She has also requested a report from the city administration regarding the siting process for locating state-sanctioned medical marijuana dispensaries, along with zoning, permitting, licensing, security and production issues associated with it.

She also pointed out that medical marijuana has been legal in Rhode Island for six years, but that state has yet to establish dispensary centers. She said medical marijuana has been legal since 1996 in California and that state has closed 600 dispensaries since October and the Los Angeles City Council has voted to ban dispensaries there.

“Right now, the law is vague in its application in Massachusetts,” Mrs. Lukes said. “The Massachusetts Department of Public Health has yet to develop any regulations and the impact on our city may be significant.”

She said her biggest concern is if a nonprofit group is awarded a license to serve as a medical marijuana dispensary. She said they would be protected by the Dover amendment and, as a result, would be allowed to locate anywhere regardless of zoning and local regulations.

“Clearly we need to look at this more closely,” Mrs. Lukes said.

But Mr. Rushton said it hasn’t even been a month since voters approved the medical marijuana referendum question in the November election. He said the state needs an opportunity to establish regulations government the siting of dispensaries before the council talks about banning them in the city.

“Voting for this (resolution) would be to say that the 38 percent who voted against the measure have veto power over the 62 percent who voted for it,” Mr. Rushton said. “To vote for this is to say that the voters are complete idiots.”